Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — the answer is transmitted to employers in the person's name and must be the person's own words, not composed or guessed. It also names exactly what gets destroyed ('replaces an earlier answer to the same question').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical integrity constraint and the replace behavior. No filler, and the most important warning is emphasized rather than buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers source of input, integrity constraint, and overwrite semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It could still be clearer about the distinction from screening_answers_set and whether a confirmation is returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'The person's answer, in their words' and 'The question as the form words it,' so the description largely restates those semantics. The only additive element is the pointer to auto_apply_get as the authoritative source for the question string.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save the person's answer to one screening question') and adds the downstream purpose ('so automatic applications can send it'). It points to auto_apply_get as the source of the question wording, but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling screening_answers_set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives partial routing guidance by saying to take the question wording from auto_apply_get, and clarifies the replace-on-repeat behavior. However, it never states when to use this versus screening_answers_set or answer_bank_list/delete, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.